Skip to main content
University of Texas at Austin
University Interscholastic League Logo
University Interscholastic League Logo

UIL Speech Judges

If you have corrections, questions or comments regarding this information, please notify The UIL Speech and Debate department at or 512-471-5883.

John Anderson

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No


Number of years coached: 3

Number of tournaments judged: 3

High school attended:
Lampasas High

Graduated high school: 2012

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
4 years of CX in high school, 4 years of extemp, 3 years of LD. Three year coach of high school debaters. CX semifinalist and finalist at UIL state meet.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 8
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: I am open to any arguments. I think that any issue that can be linked to proving the resolution true/false is fair game to vote on so long as it is impacted. Failure to respond does not guarantee an automatic loss but does provide a huge disadvantage to whoever dropped the argument; it is up to the other team to explain how the drop matters in the grand scheme of things and whether or not it warrants my ballot. I love discussion of policy issues such as on-case, DAs and CPs, but equally enjoy structural arguments such as topicality and theory so long as it is taken seriously. Kritiks are fine but be aware I'm not well-read in any fringe literature so try not to run anything that would take too long to explain, and include framework on the K flow. Clash is very important to me so be sure to be responsive to any and all arguments.


Rounds judged: 7
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
I think that there are multiple ways to win a round and that a value/criteria framework is not always necessary. However, if you choose a value and criterion, I expect you to use it as offensive leverage against your opponent. I am fine with co-opting your opponent's framework as well so long as it suits your arguments. I expect clear voters from both sides and direct clash of as many arguments that are relevant to the debate. Drops mean nothing if they aren't extended and impacted out; do not assume you have won because an opponent dropped your attack. Explain why that means you win.

Contact Information

cell: 512 5253973

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1 2 5 8